You say "We carry more rail passengers per rail car than any other rail system, according to June 2006 data in an industry magazine."  What are the actual numbers for METRO compared to 'the others'?  What are the numbers (of bordings) from other autorities you don't seem to mention?  What magazine are you quoting?

Information is power.  

Thank you in advance for your response.

I like looking at the farm animals.  I use 108 Vet. Memorial/700 Red Line combo.  $3.00 Round Trip.  With parking.  Gas over $2.00 gal.  Do the math!

Actually, METRO has altered routes so that over 1/2 of all routes dump the hapless poor, minority, elderly and handicapped bus transit dependent riders onto the tram platforms, where they are herded like "sheeple" so as to artificailly boost the tram  boardings, delaying citizens, just so METRO can make the misleading claim that the tram is a "success."

In reality, the tram boardings have declined the last five months from the same periods last year, and the ratio of Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) revenue per tram boarding continues to decline.  Since METRORail has been operating for over three years with no ability to read/deduct credit from any stored value card (SVC) or monthly passes, the only measure of paid ridership is via the monthly TVM sales.  All other boardings are free riders or transfers.

Dominic, for those of us who live out in the burbs, cost of parking at a park and Ride for the Rodeo, $10.00 per vehicle, round trip ride $4.00 per person.  My car holds 4 people, so our total cost is $26.00.  If we drive down to Reliant, cost of parking is $12.00.  So that leaves me $14.00 for gas.  Let's say gas is $2.50 per gallon, that is 5.6 gallons.  My car gets 30 mpg, so that equates to 168 miles.  Looks like, while Metro is economical for those who live in the local area, those of us who live outside of Metro's city routes it is not.  If Metro had free parking at the park and rides, they would be more economical for the rest of us.

Mary, You made the following comments and I tried to view the website archives for Metro Mag, June 2006 and found no articles on rankings. Vould you provide us with a link in your posts to any referenced data?

It puzzles me how the number came to be for Houston's trams. You posted:

 1. METRO Houston had 18 total rail cars, 11.2

    million annual rail boardings, and 622,000

    annual boardings per rail car.

I watch the trams quite often at various hours and generally see several vehicles parked at the maintenance center even during prime hours. Yesterday there were 3 visible outside the shops (no idea if any were inside.

Even assuming every trolley is operating all the time and based on the frequency of spacing, it seems that the 622,000 boardings per vehicle per vehicle per year is high?

That comes to 1704 passenger trips PER DAY every single day of the week. If we assume (and again...several vehicles do not operate all day) this and say that each vehicle makes 30 individual trips (7.5 miles) that each car will handle roughly 57 people per trip. The 30 trips is figuring 15 roundtrips as each loop takes over 1 hour.

Observation does not seem to show these numbers and my calcs are figuring every single day while weekends have far less passengers so the actual expected haul would be more like perhaps 2500-4000 people per week day per vehicle.

On a second point, could you have Metro provide the fare box data for each station for the day the record was set and also for say the same weekday one week earlier? Can you provide also the sales numbers for the parking lots at Fannin and also Smith Landing for that day for the rodeo people only?

Was Metro dropping bus shuttles at the rodeo or the Fannin South Station also during the rodeo? I noticed a lot of buses turning towards the Fannin South Station two days rather than turning and entering Reliant Park.

Thanks in advance. This message sent 11:54am 03/28.

BTW- In the FY2006 report Mr. Wilson filed with the NTD, METRO actually has 17 trams in operation as one was severly damaged last year, and was not in service for a significant portion of the reporting period.

Royko,

What are these "trams" you keep talking about?  Are you referring to MetroRail?  If so, have you ever even been on one?  I see you bashing the system on this blog frequently, and you don't seem to know what you are talking about.  One example is that you keep calling the rail system "underutilized," which is obviously not true to anyone who uses the rail on a regular basis.  I've ridden it to work in the med center for over a year and a half, and I can tell you that there are more people riding now than when I started.  Please go by the Dryden or Memorial Hermann Hospital southbound platform any time from 3:00 to 6:00 M-F and you will see about 75-100 people waiting to ride.  I was downtown on a weekday last week, and the number of riders there is nearly as high during commuting times.

On this thread you said that bus lines dump riders onto rail platforms to "artificially" boost ridership.  First, the buses do not stop at rail platforms.  There are three rail stops that are transfer stations (TMC, Wheeler, Downtown transit), but this makes sense, does it not, to connect the bus lines to the rail lines.  It would not make sense for them to be disconnected.  Secondly, if bus riders then get on the train to travel, how is this an "artificial" boarding?

Don G,

There are easily as many riders as you calculate (1704 per day per week).  For example, if for 3 hours, 75 people board each train (6 per hour), that is 1350 riders in that 3 hour period.  There are easily that many people boarding at the southbound medical center stops during those time periods, and probably that many at the Main St. Square stop as well.  Double that number for morining trips and you are at 2700 riders per day, just in the peak commuting hours.  My observations do support these numbers.

Back in the early 1970's, in the UK, the term for tram was changed, as promoters will do so as to try and "sell the sizzle" when there is no beef.

The technical description of the system is a tram.  You call it what you will.

I do not have to ride the tram to know it is unsafe, unreliable, and underutilized.  From time-to-time, pro-urban rail lemming comment that I do not know what I am talking about.

I often cite METRO's own data, along with analysis.  Last week during the March BOD meeting, METRO president Frank Wilson suggested I was arithmetically-challenged since I did not read and rely upon his convoluted management reports.  I replyed, I used METRO data released under the Texas Public Information Act as well as the reports METRO is required to file with the federal government.

Fact: With the fixed-guideway constructed in the street right-of-way, two disparate transportation modes makes this an unsafe condition.

Fact: The METRORail has been involved in numerous vehicle collisions, and has had several hundred major mechanicle malfunctions which, along with the street flooding causes the tram system to be unreliable.

Fact: While streets provide rubber-tired vehicles 24/7 utilization, the tram has limited utility as well as restricted operation, ergo UNDERUTILIZED!

Allow me to present some recent data:

The recent TVM revenue/boarding for February 2007 was $0.184, and FY2007 to date is only $0.155.

Also, TVM/Boarding ratio for FY2006 was $0.17

The cost for electricity/Vehicle Revenue Mile:

        FY2004*     FY2005     FY2006

VRM      473,368     805,568    859,867

E Cost   $410,915    $586,477   $741,027

        --------    --------   --------

E$/VRM   $ 0.868     $ 0.728    $ 0.862

* METRORail started at the beginning of the Second Quarter of FY2004 (9 months of operation).

Estimate of Average Ridership based on reported passenger miles divided by vehicle revenue miles:

TRAM             PM / VRM      =  AVG Ridership

FY2004   13,757,568 / 473,368  =  29.06

FY2005   25,565,990 / 805,568  =  31.74

FY2006   27,517,634 / 859,867  =  32.00

There have been several discrepencies in the METRO data, and METRO has been "stonewalling" the FY2006 financial statement which was likely completed in December 2006.

I was told today that they thought they had already released the FY2006 Financial Statement which should have been along with the FY2006 report to the NTD.  They are checking.  I'm still waiting.

Royko,

Calling me a lemming makes me laugh.  Using the tactic of labeling people who have different viewpoints is elementary school level rhetoric, and so is the labeling of everything Metro with terms like boondoggle, underutilized, convoluted, and the use of tram instead of train or light rail.  It reveals your bias.  You know full well that the term “tram” is currently used to describe vehicles that move people from one airport terminal to another, from parking lots to amusement parks, or tourists up mountains.  Your use of this term is intended to belittle the light rail system.

I’m not a lemming.  I’m not necessarily pro-Metro.  What I am is a member of this society who tries to live in a responsible way, which in this case it means having one less car on the road M-F.  Therefore, I’m pro-light rail.  It moves thousands of people every day and keeps thousands of cars off our streets and roads.  Those fewer cars means less pollution, fewer traffic accidents (thus lower insurance rates), less road rage, less gasoline consumed (thus less reliance on foreign oil and subsidizing terrorists), less urban sprawl, etc.  I find it surprising that you are opposed to making your city and country a better place to live.

Let me address some of your “facts.”  Yes, the train has had collisions with vehicles.  There were nearly always, if not always, the fault of the vehicle drivers, not the train operators.  I don’t find it necessary to look up the statistics, because I’m sure the rate of accidents involving the train and automobiles is considerably less than automobile-automobile accidents.  Therefore, it is much safer to have people riding the train than driving cars.  The train runs in a straight line, how hard can it be to avoid driving into it?  Drivers need to pay more attention, then the accident rate will go down.  Every mode of transportation has accidents; cars, buses, airplanes, boats, elevators, trucks, space shuttles, none are immune from accidents.  None of these are immune from vehicle breakdown, either.  All are mechanical and all need maintenance and repair at times.  As for the flooding, can cars navigate the flooded roadways even when the train can’t?  I think not, flooding is going to affect all modes of transportation.

The train sharing the street with cars:  not the best design, I agree.  But, again, it runs in a straight line, drivers should be able to avoid collisions if they can avoid collisions with other cars that make turns and change lanes.  What are the alternatives?  Underground trains; not feasible in this geography.  Elevated rail lines; better than on the street, but much more expensive.  You are already complaining about cost, so I don’t imagine you would like to spend the money to elevate the lines.

That trains are not rubber-tired and run on a restricted operation:  Well, yes, they are not buses, aren’t you just stating the obvious?  And, the subway system in London doesn’t run 24/7 either.  I don’t see why this is a problem.  Why would you want the trains to run 24/7, in hours when very, very few people would buy rides, when you are already complaining about the cost per ride?  Running at all hours would make the system underutilized, running when the riders are available makes it utilized.

As for citing Metro’s data with analysis, frankly, I don’t find your analysis credible, as it seems you have some axe to grind and are not in touch with the actual passenger use the trains are getting.  Try riding the entire line during commuting hours, then report back with how “underutilized” the system is, and then we can talk.

scientiffikk,

For you to call me "biased" and then claim my analysis is not credible exposes your "bias" to remain ignorant of the facts, and buy into METRO's rhetoric.

Fine, this is America, and you are free to believe what you want.

METRORail, nor the planned fixed-guideway extensions, will not solve the mobility problems in Houston, yet METRO will divert a disproportionately large portion of precious taxparer resources.

This pro-rail policy harms the poor, minority, elderly, and handicapped bus transit dependent riders throughout the service area.  The public transportation system was intended to be a safety-net for these folks, not a yuppie magnet or redevelopment funding resource to be exploited by the plutocracy and political insiders feeding at the public trough!

METRO installed a system which overrides the traffic lights, unfairly short-cycling the green.  Naturally, if one can not stop on a shortened-green, they will be in the intersection when the light has turned "red."  METRORail also violated the law when they also short-cycled the lights, as this also interrupted the "Walk" signals, in violation of the "ADA" causing the situation where the blind man was nearly killed!  So, according to your logic, it was the blind man's fault when he was struck by the tram!

You can attack me for telling you what METRO will not, but it is not intellectually honest to claim I have no credibility when you refuse to be objective.

You tell them Scientiffikk! I AGREE TOTALLY!!!!

Ms. Sit,

In your efforts to research METRO data, and you come acrosss the FY2006 Financial Statement, could you make a copy and send it by email?

It was signed by the Auditing Firm KPMG on January 15, 2007, yet METRO has yet to release it to me.

Ms. Alexander stated in a letter a week before the last BOD meeting that METRO had it, yet nearly three weeks later, I am still waiting.